Forums

Greetings.As some of us have said, that we don't need more plastic figures...and more good scenarios with the terrain tiles from,for example:Terrain Pack;So I thought about a compromise:some of us say,that we need specific AFV's (Tigers,Panthers,etc.),so it could contain some of them,like King Tigers or M36 Sluggers,and for those who want new scenarios,it could contain 8+1 new scenarios(8 regular and 1 overlord ,or the regulars could need other terrain tiles).This expansion could not contain a new army,just new rules,some specific tanks,terrains,and scenarios.Just think about it!

Greetings.As some of us have said, that we don't need more plastic figures...and more good scenarios with the terrain tiles from,for example:Terrain Pack;So I thought about a compromise:some of us say,that we need specific AFV's (Tigers,Panthers,etc.),so it could contain some of them,like King Tigers or M36 Sluggers,and for those who want new scenarios,it could contain 8+1 new scenarios(8 regular and 1 overlord ,or the regulars could need other terrain tiles).This expansion could not contain a new army,just new rules,some specific tanks,terrains,and scenarios.Just think about it!

I'm strongly against specific units....

most guys of the forum wants some super-tanks like (especially Tigers) ... In my opinion instead you have to choose between:

1) all units are generic.
2) all units represent that of unit shown by the model

3) all units represent generic units except some units that represent that units (for instance tigers) and this is in my opinion the worst way)

In addition remeber that the tanks represent a variable number of tanks in each scenario thus three units of a less powerful tank may stand for much more units of a more powerful tank with four units.

If you really want the Tigers to represent their strenght they would have to fire 4 or 5 hexes distant (but then the artilery would have to fire covering the whole map!), to throw 4 or 5 die in combat and to be hit only in close combat or by the sides and the rear. However to rempresent that their where availabe in very limited numbers you would have only a miniature of them in a memoir scaled map!

In other words in my opinion let DoW make their job instead of make them confusion!

I like the game like it is (and personally without the air pack)and I don't feel the need for specific miniatures

However, I agree keep it simple. I would like some level of historic accuracy though, and for example and would like to able to use appropriate British tanks in the Western front pre 1941 or post Normandy. Thats why the crusader was a disspointing choice, it only ever fought in the desert.

But there is a way that you could introduce Heavy Tanks without upping the complexity too much. Most tank units fought in squads of 4, for example one Tiger, maybe a Panther and then a couple of Pz 4's. You could introduce a Tiger tank, make it one of the three tanks in a unit. While the Tiger is till alive that unit moves 2 but fires 4 (they would tend to keep together, thus slowing them all down). Also while the Tiger is still alive, the grenade sumbol doesn't kill any of the unit (becasue of the thicker armour). The Tiger would be the first tank to be elimated, then revert to normal rules.

This would add some level of realism, without over complicating it. It would also drive strategy, eg the Tiger equipped division would be avoided wherever possible, and it would be better in defence.

Beware, I havent actually playtested it yet! If you get there before me let me know how you get on.

G

Sure, I'll give it a try and let you know. What I might do to make the Tiger Unit a little less powerful is place a Tiger with Elite armor units but only have two regular figures. That way the Tiger Unit is still hard to destroy (because it can only be hit by grenades until the Tiger is eliminated) but it won't last as long.

There are a few questions that might come up though...what if the Tiger is still alive and I roll three dice; 1 grenade, 1 star, 1 tank. Does the tank symbol hit even though the Tiger was alive (but since the grenade eliminated the Tiger, the other two are now vulnerable)? Or does the unit ignore tank symbols until the end of the turn?

Another question...if I play Medics and Mechanics on my Tiger Unit after the Tiger was eliminated, does the Tiger come back to haunt the battlefield?!

Just to avoid confusion for other readers, my proposal was the grenade was ineffective on units with Tigers (or other heavy tanks) in. You quoted it the other way round, but its the same odds.

Answers to your questions

Medics? - the effect of this is getting the unit back to its starting strength, so yes the Tiger does come back (its tracks have been repaired)

Dice throw of tank, grenade, star on a unit of 2 pzr 4's and a Tiger? - Thought about this a bit, and I think we'll go the route of the total unit being invicible to grenades on that throw if they have a Tiger in the unit. Once its gone, grenades count as usual.

Beware, I havent actually playtested it yet! If you get there before me let me know how you get on.

G

Check out my Battle of the Bulge scenario on my user page for my tiger rule.

__________________
"And while the hordes of death are mighty, the battalions of life are mightier still. It is my hope that my son, when I am gone, will remember me not from the battle but in the home repeating with him our simple daily prayer, 'Our Father who art in heaven." Douglas MacArthur <><

Doesn't DoW already use tigers? The units with 4 tank figures instead of 3. Your rules work perfectly as a house rule, but it would be too confusing for DoW to release new tiger rules in addition to the old ones. They would either have to have two different kinds of tigers (unlikely) or have to go through play-testing the old battles with the new rules to make sure they don't change them too much.

Dont read them as Tiger rules, read them as heavy tank rules. The current elite tank rules only mean they require one more hit to be killed, they do not really represent the different characteristics of heavy tanks

I thought about making more scenarios about the Ardennes.What's your opinion about this?

I agree. I think that in general we do need new scenarios
but I'm against new plastics or terrain hex tiles!

We have already all the necessary stuff.
We don't need a Kursk, a Stalingrad, an Ardennes, a Guadalcanal expansion....just new scenarios..expecially overlord ones

I agree with this. At this point we have the tools to cook up just about any ground scenario we can think of. I admit to being a sucker for more tiles and plastic, but what will really add to the game are more scenarios of all stripes.

Greetings.As some of us have said, that we don't need more plastic figures...and more good scenarios with the terrain tiles from,for example:Terrain Pack;So I thought about a compromise:some of us say,that we need specific AFV's (Tigers,Panthers,etc.),so it could contain some of them,like King Tigers or M36 Sluggers,and for those who want new scenarios,it could contain 8+1 new scenarios(8 regular and 1 overlord ,or the regulars could need other terrain tiles).This expansion could not contain a new army,just new rules,some specific tanks,terrains,and scenarios.Just think about it!

There actually is an Overlord scenario we will release online when this expansion ships. Just ping us back about this when Winter Wars ship if we forget. It's a real fun one too (we didn't put it in the expansion itself because we ran out of space and it would have increased the requirements for what is needed to enjoy this expansion)

There actually is an Overlord scenario we will release online when this expansion ships. Just ping us back about this when Winter Wars ship if we forget. It's a real fun one too (we didn't put it in the expansion itself because we ran out of space and it would have increased the requirements for what is needed to enjoy this expansion)

Great news that Overlord will be supported too. ANd that means I can safely buy another winter/desert board.

Stig Morten.

PS: Still only started too enjoy the Disaster at Dieppe Battlemap and now this.
When am I supposed to play any other games?

Greetings.As some of us have said, that we don't need more plastic figures...and more good scenarios with the terrain tiles from,for example:Terrain Pack;So I thought about a compromise:some of us say,that we need specific AFV's (Tigers,Panthers,etc.),so it could contain some of them,like King Tigers or M36 Sluggers,and for those who want new scenarios,it could contain 8+1 new scenarios(8 regular and 1 overlord ,or the regulars could need other terrain tiles).This expansion could not contain a new army,just new rules,some specific tanks,terrains,and scenarios.Just think about it!

I'm strongly against specific units....

most guys of the forum wants some super-tanks like (especially Tigers) ... In my opinion instead you have to choose between:

1) all units are generic.
2) all units represent that of unit shown by the model

3) all units represent generic units except some units that represent that units (for instance tigers) and this is in my opinion the worst way)

In addition remeber that the tanks represent a variable number of tanks in each scenario thus three units of a less powerful tank may stand for much more units of a more powerful tank with four units.

If you really want the Tigers to represent their strenght they would have to fire 4 or 5 hexes distant (but then the artilery would have to fire covering the whole map!), to throw 4 or 5 die in combat and to be hit only in close combat or by the sides and the rear. However to rempresent that their where availabe in very limited numbers you would have only a miniature of them in a memoir scaled map!

In other words in my opinion let DoW make their job instead of make them confusion!

I like the game like it is (and personally without the air pack)and I don't feel the need for specific miniatures

I like the idea of specific units but not for every scenario.
I have a bunch of n-scale/10mm armor and like the look of mixed and matched armor on the board. When I play a scenario that requires specific unit types I'll make each unit all of one type or a common paint scheme.

I also like mixing in halftracks and armored cars with my infantry. I count them as an infantry unit. The vehicles are removed first or before the last infantry figure is removed. When using the Patrol Car/Halftrack special rules I place the required figures.

I think there's room for a middle ground. It doesn't have to be either everything is generic or everything is unit specific (ie., Tigers, US M1 infantry, etc).

The solution, in my mind, is to use "light," "medium," and "heavy" as the representative descriptions.

The key to making this type of system work, though, is that there has to advantages AND disadvantages to each type of unit, just like there was historically.

Most military units -- tanks, ships, planes, even infantry -- are governed by a simple rule of three: firepower, defense, mobility. If you think of these as the points of a triangle, then any unit must occupy a place in that triangle. And the closer you get to one specific point (firepower, for example), the further you move from the others. Thus, a tank with a huge cannon must sacrifice speed and armor. This holds true for most any vehicle, even today.

This is especially true with armor. So to put it in Memoir 44 terms, the tanks that we're most used to are medium tanks (American M4 Sherman, German Mark IV Panzer, British Crusader, Russian T34, etc). If we take their 3-piece unit, 3-space movement, and 3-3-3 range as a baseline (ie., the middle of the triangle), then heavy tanks should have some disadvantages -- especially speed.

So maybe heavy tanks only move 2 spaces, but get four-piece units. Or maybe they move 2 but fire 3-3-3-2.

Then there are light tanks -- the American (and Allied) Stuart, the German Mk III (and lower), the French Renault, Russian BT-7, etc. These would be faster. Say they move four spaces. The trade off, with a smaller cannon and less armor, is defense and firepower. So they move 4, but fire 2-2-2 (or 3-2-2...whatever). They may also only have 2 piece units, to represent their vulnerability.

There would be some argument over tanks that straddle classes -- is the Mk V Panther a medium or a heavy? -- but that's part of the fun.

It has been interesting watching this game evolve, over the years, from something very general, resembling BattleCry, to something that is increasingly specific with every release. Although it's still "light," by war game standards, the increased attention to detail has made it a better game, in my view.

In my opinion the generic units are a strength of the game... that is quick, simple amd fun.

I agree with you. I like the idea of "heavy tank unit" but I don't like "Tigers."

Unit composition in this game is generic by nature. There is no need for bazookas. Generic infantry have built-in anti-tank capability. I think distinctions like "Elite" are great. The game suffers when we get much more specific than that.